Main menu

Tag Archives: academies

Post navigation

We have continued to meet and discuss issues relating to local schools, especially academisations and ‘free’ schools. We have also conducted campaigns via direct action and through publicity.

NUAST – We were very concerned at the stories we were hearing about NUAST, its numbers and its inner turmoil. We lobbied an open evening in February where we distributed leaflets, spoke to prospective parents and even to the Chair of Governors. Subsequent lobbies did not take place due to lack of numbers. Following a Freedom of Information tussle with NUAST, and some research, we were able to obtain and publish information that we believed to be highly damaging to NUAST; following an anonymous tip-off from a parent we were able to alert the local press to the sudden departure of the Principal; we fed information to the press but were unable to get them to publish the more damaging aspects of the information we received. A further FoI request is being sent to attempt to quantify current numbers at NUAST and examination outcomes. We plan to contact local schools potentially affected by NUAST recruitment and seek support in distributing literature.

Beeston FieldsPrimary – We learnt part-way into the so-called consultation that academisaton was imminent. We wrote and used Freedom of Information to reveal the shoddy nature of the process which we then publicised. We tried to put pressure on the Governors and wrote to the Secretary of State – a contact which went unacknowledged. Once again, the press failed to pick up and publicise this story and we understand the school has become an academy under the ‘Flying High’ Trust.

Edwalton Primary – Also to be academised with ‘Flying High’, this primary school appeared to be going through the same process as Beeston Fields. We once again wrote and put the case against and also supported a parent who became active but could not drum up enough support for a concerted opposition.

We have kept track, as far as possible, with other plans and developments locally in the hope that, if necessary, we can react to potential academisations or new ‘free’ schools.

The election saw a depressing result for HOOS as the Conservatives have vowed to accelerate the pace of academisations and increase the number of ‘free’ schools. The one ray of light was the change of heart of the Labour Party who now oppose ‘free’ schools and have talked about taking all schools back into democratic control. Groups like HOOS have kept the arguments for democratic control of state-funded schools alive and we must continue to do so.

Not a Nottingham story, but it’s important to realise what is happening elsewhere. We hear that, indeed, all is far from well at The Richmond Park Academy, successor to the former Shene School, a stone’s throw from the leafy environs of the deer park.

Richmond Park achieved a ‘Good’ OFSTED in 2012 so is anticipating another visit any time soon and there would, in any case, be anxiety at the prospect of being inspected under a reputedly tougher ‘framework’. Unfortunately, the school seems to be faced with a massive deficit (the figure one million pounds is being bandied about) and this has prompted desperate and chaotic measures in an attempt to solve the mess. This has led to hastily rewritten and imposed new job descriptions, mass staff walkouts (we hear the entire admin team has upped and left) and union meetings replacing the usual first day inset activities.

We are not sure how the school has found itself in this situation but it may only be an extreme example of what is facing all schools: rising costs from inflation and staff wage increases – however modest – and additional employers’ National Insurance contributions, at a time when school budgets will, the Conservative Government has promised, remain static in cash terms.

Two local primary schools are facing ‘academisation’ to become part of The Flying High Trust by September 2015.

Campaigners like ‘Hands Off Our Schools’ are opposed to this process for reasons that have been aired before on this blog and elsewhere. Others who are fair-minded just think that, if this really is the best way forward for their school, the matter should be fully and openly debated, with the arguments ‘for’ and ‘against’ properly aired and all the stakeholders given the information they need to make a fully-informed decision – and that those ‘consulted’ should have a means of expressing their opinion clearly, such as a secret ballot. We are confident that, in such a situation, many people would be persuaded by our arguments and, if those proposing or supporting ‘academisation’ are so sure of the benefits, they too would be prepared to argue and debate openly.

But they’re not.

Here’s an item I posted yesterday on the ‘Hands Off Our Schools’ blog:

The election result was, for many if not all, in the field of education, both a shock and a disappointment. Education did not figure greatly in the election campaign and it would be interesting to know how many people who voted Conservative knew very much about their policies on education, or for whom these policies were the deciding factor in casting their vote. Not that Labour’s policies in opposition had sounded that great, not a lot more than watered down versions of the Conservative ones, but I think we would have felt happier with a Labour-led government. With the Conservatives now in power in their own right, we know, from their manifesto, something of what we have coming.

Interestingly, in defeat comes renewed support – look at the SNP post loss of the referendum – and I gather there has been a surge in membership of the Labour Party! I recall I joined the Labour Party when it was at a very low ebb, in the early eighties, following an incident where the local Conservative MP made a public, ill-informed and totally inaccurate complaint about what was being taught at my school. It seemed to me that, whilst I wasn’t entirely clear that I supported what Labour was proposing, I could be certain that I was against the Conservatives. Perversely, perhaps, I left the Labour Party in 1997!

Anyway, I am currently in email conversation with two people who are, as it were, ‘insiders’ in education, both ‘lay people’, who are unhappy with what is happening at their respective schools and where perhaps I and the ‘Hands Off Our Schools’ group can help and support them. Can’t say much at the moment – it may, or may not, come to something in the next few weeks. The reality is that, whilst the Conservatives can claim a mandate for whatever they do in education, there will always be those who ideologically, like myself, oppose them. There will also be others who are, so to speak, ordinary members of the public who have no especial axe to grind, but who dislike what they see in terms of process and practice. Those people can be better informed by those of us who have spent many long hours researching and digging and who know that what is being presented and said is not the whole truth nor, in many cases, true at all.

Sadly, it looks as though, with the current crop of contenders for leadership of the Labour Party, Tory education policy on such things as ‘free schools’ will be either accepted or allowed through unopposed. We will need to look to other groups to speak up for properly-funded schools that are rooted in and ultimately accountable to, their local communities. It is also clear that, we need to be realistic and accept that Local Authorities are withering away and there needs to be a different ‘model’ for community schools – academies and ‘free’ schools, even – for campaigners like me to promote and argue for (I may propose such a model in a future post).

So, although I have wider concerns about policies like housing, welfare and the economy, these are not my fields of expertise or experience. I will, however, continue to ferret away in the ‘education corner’, exposing, promoting and informing where I can.

A school near us, Beeston Fields Primary School, is going through a sham ‘consultation’. The ‘Hands Off Our Schools’ group, of which I am currently Secretary, submitted the following letter in mid-April as an unsolicited contribution to the ‘community consultation’. I have sent it again today as there has been no acknowledgement, although a colleague who lives in the ‘catchment’ wrote in similar terms and got an acknowledgement. The process ends this Friday – we have been outmanoeuvred as we didn’t hear about it until after the consultation meetings for parents, (both) held on the last day of term.

“Dear Headteacher and Chair of Governors

I write on behalf of ‘Hands Off Our Schools’, a group campaigning against ‘free’ schools and the conversion of state schools to academies, in Nottinghamshire. Many of our members live, or are based, in Beeston and I should be grateful therefore if you would accept the following as part of the ‘community consultation’ regarding the proposed academisation of Beeston Fields Primary School, and will copy its contents to all members of the governing body.

In the light of my opening paragraph, it will not surprise you to learn that we are opposed to your proposal to convert the School to an academy as part of the Flying High Trust. The only information which we have on which to base our arguments are the Headteacher’s letter and three FAQ documents on your website. It would appear from these that you have not considered the arguments against conversion, or, if you have, you have chosen not to acknowledge or give this information to parents.

I will briefly rehearse these arguments – there are of course many places on the web where they can be fleshed out – I would recommend you start with the Anti-Academies Alliance or the Local Schools Network.

1. There is no convincing evidence that converting to academy status has any positive effect on educational outcomes for children, despite the misuse of data by Michael Gove, Nicky Morgan, David Cameron and the Department for Education in asserting that it does;

2. There are no financial advantages for schools converting unless they choose not to provide some of the support services available from a local authority. There are many issues that a school outside the local authority has to deal with, ranging from building insurance and legal services to payroll and human resources. Have the governors considered what they would do, for example, in the event of serious damage to school buildings as a result of fire or other emergency?

3. The decision to convert to academy status, once made, cannot be reversed, ever, unless and until there is a change in legislation; similarly, there is no mechanism for a school to leave one multi-academy trust and join another one, except by a decision taken by the Secretary of State. This may seem irrelevant at the moment, but it means that you, as a small group of people, will make a decision that will bind a, perhaps, completely different set of people (once you have moved on, resigned, moved out of the area) in the future.

4. There is little doubt that the process of academisation and the setting up of ‘free’ schools is part of this government’s agenda to break up the state school system and, in effect, ‘privatise’ it. There have already been a number of instances of individuals using this system to ‘syphon off’ public money, either through additional or excessive salaries, the charging of unjustified ‘expenses’, the charging of ‘consultancy’ fees and the awarding of contracts to companies connected to those on boards of directors of these ‘charitable trusts’. Of course, I cast no aspersions on anyone currently on the board of Flying High Trust or on your governing body. However, this has happened even whilst ‘trusts’ have had to operate within ‘charitable status’. How much worse could it become if, as certainly Mr Gove wanted, the law was changed to enable businesses openly to make a profit? Are the governors of Beeston Fields happy to be part of this ‘market forces’ project by the Conservative Party?

5. If you doubt the assertions in (4) consider that the process of academisation, sometimes enforced against the organised and clearly-expressed wishes of local parents, and the setting up of ‘free’ schools, has cost a lot of (our) money, at a time when we were being told money was very tight. Given that there has been no proven benefit, why has the Government done this? It seems very clear to us that it has been for ideological reasons.

You need further to consider the effect of joining the education market place. The Flying High Trust may, in the future, by taken over by a bigger ‘chain’. That chain could be owned, as some already are, by a company based abroad. Are the parents aware that, if they are dissatisfied with the Head and Governors, their recourse is not to an elected representative at County Hall, but to an unelected CEO, currently in Cotgrave, and perhaps, in future, abroad (in the USA or the Netherlands, for example) and, ultimately, to the Secretary of State in Whitehall?

6. I assume you have carried out ‘due diligence’ on Flying High Trust. You will therefore be aware how much the CEO is paid (I have no idea but judging from local examples such as Greenwood Dale and Torch, where the CEOs get paid in excess of £200000, it may well be far more than any Headteacher could aspire to); you will know whether any members of the Board are paid as ‘consultants’ or have any interest in companies providing legal, educational, ‘consultancy’ or other ‘services’; you will know what capacity a four-school (soon to be five-school?) primary trust has to support the School, and that this is much more than an entire local authority; I assume you have discussed this with the Authority.

All in all, there is much to be considered, apart from ‘the advantages’, and I sincerely hope you have had someone on the Governing Body at least, playing ‘devil’s advocate’. If you have, why have these considerations not been shared with parents?

I now turn to our second area of concern: the process of ‘consultation’. We do not consider this has been genuine consultation. If it were, the Head, in her letter, would have acknowledged that there are ‘cons’ to academisation, she would not have implied that schools are more or less obliged to move away from the local authority (even though many other Beeston primary schools have not and one of the three secondaries has not). In fact, the contents of the letter are highly ‘slanted’ and make no acknowledgment that any parent could possibly object; nor does it suggest what such a parent should do. There is no inkling of any sort of ballot or even a show of hands at the meetings. The whole process is framed in terms of the governors having made a decision and the parents being able only to ask questions, certainly not to affect the decision.

Our concern over the consultation process is deepened when we consider other aspects. The Head’s letter was dated 5 March and the consultation period began on the following day. I presume this is the first parents knew of the move and perhaps the FAQs were in response to some emailed or written questions. Yet the parents had to wait three weeks for a meeting at which, perhaps, they could raise objections. The meetings took place at the very end of term so there would be minimal chance of parents discussing the issues at the school gate – on return to school, they will now have barely two weeks before the consultation period ends. There appears to have been a carefully choreographed process aimed at minimising the chance that an opposition ‘group’ might form and scupper your plans.

So much for the rather scant ‘consultation’ of parents. What about staff? According to the FAQs, they “have been involved in the process to date and no objections have been raised by them in relation to this proposal and in fact they recognise the benefits”. Forgive me for being cynical, but I am aware of the way some small schools work. Did this ‘consultation’ perhaps consist of an open staff meeting, addressed by the Head and Chair of Governors, where no-one felt able to voice an objection?

Whilst you acknowledge the requirement to consult parents, staff and the community, I am not aware what efforts you have made to consult ‘the community’. Of course, you would need to define what is meant by this phrase and identify those who might be thought to represent the community. That is why we are writing to you. I do not claim for one moment that we represent what ‘the community’ as a whole thinks, but I do hope you have approached other local schools, user groups and community groups in your immediate vicinity.

So, to summarise, we fear you have not properly considered all the issues involved in becoming an academy and we further fear that your ‘consultation’ is based on giving highly partisan information, using a process that is neither transparent nor democratic.

We therefore call on the Governors to:

1. Extend the consultation period until after the outcome of the General Election is clear (we suggest until 1 June 2015). This will also enable you to

2. Publish on your website some of the ‘cons’ of academisation, and/or the web addresses of organisations that can give this information;

3. Publish the results of your ‘due diligence’ carried out on Flying High Trust;

4. Conduct a secret ballot of parents, and publish the results on your website;

5. Conduct a secret ballot of staff and publish the results on your website;

6. Consult properly with local schools and representatives of the local community, and publish a list of those consulted and a summary of their responses.

Unless you are prepared to do these, this group has, and will continue to have, grave concerns about the quality of the process by which you propose to turn Beeston Fields Primary School into an academy as part of the Flying High Trust, and we will consider undertaking a campaign of awareness-raising amongst staff, parents and the community.

Yours sincerely

Colin Tucker

Secretary, ‘Hands Off Our Schools’

NB Please note, ‘Hands Off Our Schools’ is a group of parents, teachers, governors, councillors and members of the community, which does not have a political affiliation.”

As those following local developments will know, the Nottingham Academy of Science and Technology (NUAST) has actually opened, this September, though not on its brand new site, in the shadow of the Dunkirk flyover. They are claiming to have just over 100 students in Year 10 and Year 12 (‘lower Sixth’).

One of our members attended a recent ‘open evening’, intended to publicise and recruit for next year – again, not in their own building but on the University campus. However, the building will soon be available for these sessions and, presumably, for teaching. Once they are able to ‘show off’ their state-of-the-art facilities, they no doubt think they will find ‘selling themselves’ that much easier.

We remain mystified as to why anyone would sign up their child on a promise, even if the facilities are good (they ought to be, considering they cost £10 million of taxpayers’ money!) The school has had a turbulent few months leading up to a rather low-key opening, with students being taught anonymously (i.e. not wearing uniforms) in another Nottingham college. Famously, the first principal left under something of a cloud partway through the year. We certainly think she was pushed as the University started worrying about what they were getting into. She had fallen out with the Uni authorities over whether or not teacher unions would be recognised – jobs were advertised on basis they would NOT be, the Uni said they would be when made aware, but she insisted, at first, that this would not be the case. Part of the Uni’s panic was also probably down to getting their fingers burned at Samworth (the other ‘Nottingham University Academy’), judged ‘Inadequate’ by OFSTED last Autumn; one of their partners at NUAST, the Djanogly Learning Trust also had its Academy judged ‘Inadequate’ in the same sweep. So they called in The Torch Academy Gateway Trust, rapidly becoming ‘flavour of the month’ in this area.

It must be remembered that ‘Torch’ is effectively one school, Toot Hill Comprehensive, in Bingham, which has achieved an ‘Outstanding’ OFSTED rating and which, to its credit, also helped The Meden School out of ‘Special Measures’. How many Headteachers would find achieving and maintaining an ‘Outstanding’ rating, and helping another school in difficulty, more than enough to fill up their time? Most, we would think, but not the Head of Toot Hill who is now CEO of ‘Torch’ on well over £200K a year.

Last Autumn, ‘Torch’ was called in at Samworth and Djanogly to help out, whilst concurrently spending time and energy (not to mention buckets’ full of taxpayers’ money) on getting the Nottingham Free School up and running (79 students started this Autumn in parts of a converted factory in Sherwood!). ‘Torch’ was also ‘called in’ to ‘provide the education’ at NUAST. It’s not entirely clear what this means but, presumably, they effectively run the place since the Uni isn’t equipped to and the Djanogly Trust shouldn’t, because it was barred from opening any new schools (except NUAST, funnily enough!)

Questions remain to be asked of NUAST:

Where is all the money coming from? It obviously hasn’t currently got enough students to make it financially viable without subsidy, even though it is clear they will offer all sorts of courses but reserve the right not to run them if they turn out to be non-viable.

In which case, how many years before the taxpayer could be said to be getting ‘value for money’?

Unlike many ‘free schools’, of which this is one type, it will have an examination record pretty soon: students in both Key Stage 4 and Sixth Form will get full GCSE and A Level results in August 2016 – so, will they be any good? By what criteria should we judge them?

Why have four governors resigned recently?

What connection is there between the erstwhile Chair of Governors and the company which ‘managed’ the recruitment process to appoint the new Principal?

What effect will recruitment to NUAST have on local schools? As education insiders know, schools seek so-called ‘option choices’ from Year 9 students in January and, on that basis, ‘option groups’, a staffing plan and timetable are constructed for the next academic year. The loss of even just a handful of students could make some groups non-viable with a knock-on effect to staffing and budgets.

Will NUAST, based on the ‘university technical college’ (UTC) model, be any more successful than other UTCs such as Hackney UTC, which has closed?

More fundamentally, is encouraging children as young as thirteen to ‘specialise’ the right thing for them? A career in engineering or science, the prospect of working with a world-class university and employers with household names might sound alluring, but will the reality be different? These children will not be entering the workforce for at least 6 years (if they are currently in Year 9) or longer. Who knows what specific skills employers might be looking for in a decade’s time? Better, maybe, to keep their options open and make sure they have a firm grounding in ‘the basics’

NUAST is wrong because it has spent, and will go on spending, money we are told is in short supply, which could have been used to improve science and engineering facilities in schools that would NOT require the children to specialise. It is wrong because it offers children and parents an illusion of choice when it cannot guarantee any level of quality. It is wrong because it holds out a promise it cannot necessarily fulfil.

A fascinating press release from DfE just a week before the end of the school year (always a good time to avoid too much scrutiny). The newly appointed Regional Schools Commissioners (appointed by Gove, it must be said) will be supported by Head Teachers Boards (HTBs). Four members in each region have just been elected and the successful candidates announced. The DfE is trumpeting the 38% turnout as being an endorsement – it certainly beats most local government elections and easily trounces the pathetic turnout for the Police and Crime Commissioner elections last year. But, wait a minute, these are the headteachers of our most successful (allegedly) schools and, presumably, just had to fill in a ballot paper and post it off : is 38% such a ringing endorsement?

Most people, I guess, do not know how these HTBs are set up and what they will do. As I said earlier, the RSCs are appointed – so far so very Gove – but then four members of the board are elected. In addition, the RSCs can appoint two more board members of his/her own choice and the Board itself can appoint two more to fill skills or experience gaps. So these boards are beginning to feel less democratic and more like self-perpetuating oligarchies. From an electorate of just over 4000, of whom more than half chose not to vote, 32 have been chosen, and, in theory at least, another 32 could be appointed by the Commissioners or the elected heads themselves.

So what are the Regional Schools Commissioners and their Boards going to do? At first glance, it looks like they are going to deal with the growing numbers of academies and academy chains which are failing to live up to the hype, that they would maintain or improve standards. The language is nice and wooly and there must be questions asked about how they will ‘monitor’ the performance of schools, except via OFSTED, and how they will support schools in difficulties (by ‘schools’ they actually mean academies and, presumably, ‘free schools’ which are, after all, particular kinds of academies). According to the release they can take “informed decisions about when and how to intervene” but how will they know pre-OFSTED and what mechanism is there for them to intervene? This sounds like a function previously carried out by a local authority whose own staff would have kept in touch with schools and regularly assessed what OFSTED grade they were on course to achieve, and had the expertise and resources to offer support and intervention. What resources do RSCs and HTBs have? What powers do they have? Who will be held to account if an academy ‘fails’?

There are many details unclear and questions begged but, in the end, this only affects academies and ‘free schools’ (albeit that, on the DfE’s figures, nearly 60% of secondaries are academies and 12% of primaries are), right? Well, wrong, actually.

One of the RSC’s remits is to agree or reject new academies (nothing specifically about ‘free schools’ so, phew, John Nash still has a job!). So, whereas the Secretary of State, an elected politician and minister of the Crown, used to make these decisions, those same decisions will now be made by appointed heads and a group of heads chosen by other heads. Whatever one says about Michael Gove (and I for one have said a lot!) in principle, he was elected and was part of a government that should have been sensitive to public opinion. Indeed, it could be argued that Gove’s removal as Secretary of State was, in part, due to pressure from many groups, including parents who objected to their views being ignored in respect of their children’s schooling. The new situation gives an unrepresentative group power over the future of state education in an area. These people will not be well-known and harder to campaign against: “Gove out!” had a snappy ring to it, “Regional School Commissioner, whatever his or her name is, and Head Teacher Board, out!” is going to be harder to chant.

To sum up, groups of faceless headteachers have quietly been set up to deflect blame from the Secretary of State when academies and chains get into trouble and have the power to make far-reaching decisions about local education without, as far as one can see, any influence from public opinion.

Certainly, there needs to be a ‘middle tier’ below Whitehall and above individual school level, monitoring and supporting schools, which should represent not the narrow interests of one grade of teacher in one type of school, but should take into account the views and needs of parents and the local community. I’ve even got a slightly snappier name for such a body.

There are many things to be said about the recent ‘Trojan horse’ furore in Birmingham. Was the original letter a hoax? Had there been a concerted effort to takeover schools? Was this a witch hunt? How well should OFSTED come out of this? And what of the spat between May and Gove?

There are conflicting claims and counter claims so I’ll stick with those where I feel competent to comment. Firstly, there certainly seems to have been something to worry about in terms of the governance of these schools and the influence of parents. Gove cannot escape the fact that the majority of the schools where there appears to have been a problem were academies where, by design, the local authority has no monitoring role and, evidently, Gove and the DfE are too far removed to have any impact. These sorts of problems, along with the money-making ‘conflicts of interest’ reported in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph (see link below) seem to me to be inherent in the set up of academies and ‘free’ schools. It seems barmy that one way being suggested for dealing with the problems is to transfer those schools to another academy chain, this time, presumably, one approved of by the Secretary of State.

Therein lies one of the contradictions at the heart of the coalition reforms. Gove has claimed all along that he wants to give greater freedom to schools, their managers and parents, yet, as we have already seen, this freedom is only to be exercised in a way of which Gove approves. There are now many well-documented instances of schools faced with enforced academisation where consultation has been bogus and clearly-demonstrated parental wishes have been overridden. To badly paraphrase Henry Ford, ‘you can have any kind of school you like as long as Mr Gove agrees’. So, it appears from the Birmingham cases, that we can just swap ‘ownership’ around til we get a Gove-friendly lot to manage our schools.

Mr Gove said in his recent ‘Policy Exchange’ speech that children have only one chance at school education, yet in his actions, he shows that he appears to have forgotten that: how else to explain the cavalier approach to the way schools are run? Gove’s is quite clearly a neo-con, ‘market forces’ approach, a touching faith that competition, choice and ‘the market’ will raise standards. Even if, in the long run, that proves to be the case (which I very much doubt), the logic of this approach is that some schools will suffer turbulence on the way and heaven help the children who happen to be in those schools at that time, getting their ‘one chance’.

Finally, in his response to ‘the Trojan horse’ revelations, Gove has announced that all schools will in future be required to promote ‘British values’. I could spend several posts unpicking this one. In the first place, it sounds like one of those policitians’ phrases that appeals instantly to a certain type of voter, who believes he knows what it means: remember John Major’s ill-fated ‘back to basics’? This one will obviously tap into a resurgent patriotism, at a time of near-racist comments from UKIP which seem to have touched a nerve, and, of course, the early stages of the World Cup (ie before England leaves the competition!).

Leaving aside what we might interpret ‘promote’ to mean, several high profile people have explained what they understand to be ‘British values’ – I’ve already heard David Cameron’s and Baroness Warsi’s subtley different takes; but, if he’s going to issue an edict, Mr Gove will have to give a clear definition and what will emerge, I daresay, will be a ‘motherhood and apple-pie’ (to use a non-British phrase!) definition with which no-one can disagree – something along the lines of ‘democracy, justice, fairness, tolerance, equality’ which all schools will, with some justification, claim they are promoting and have for many years.

Anyway, I’ll uncharacteristically give Mr Gove the last word. Here he is, talking to Prospect magazine in 2007: “There is something rather unBritish about seeking to define Britishness.”

Here’s the text of a letter I have just sent to the Nottingham Post about the new Nottingham University Academy of Science and Technology:

Dear Sir

I’m wondering why a world-renowned institution like Nottingham University has got into bed with the Djanogly Learning Trust to promote a new ‘academy’ of entirely unknown quality.

The Nottingham University Academy of Science and Technology (NUAST) seems to have been conceived in response to the 2011 Wolf Report into vocational education, the thrust of which was that children shouldn’t specialise too soon and should ensure a thorough grounding in the ‘basics’ of literacy and numeracy. NUAST’s published curriculum will have children from 14 specialising in either an ‘Engineering’ or ‘IT’ pathway, to the detriment of a broader, balanced curriculum: in order to achieve the English Baccalaureate children will study geography (the only ‘humanity’ offered, no history) and, as their Modern Foreign Langauge, German or Chinese (and, it must be doubtful whether, with no previous experience, children will be able to achieve a GCSE ‘pass’ in Chinese after two hours a week for two years).

As for English and Maths, students will only get three hours each per week. One of Professor Wolf’s most eye-catching proposals in her report was that children should be required to resit Maths or English if they ‘failed’ at 16 – I wonder how much of that will be going on at NUAST!

However, there are some more basic questions to ask of NUAST. Will the wonderful building envisaged in glowing graphics on their website actually be reality in three months’ time? (Pop down to the Dunkirk Roundabout and have a look, then place your bets!) Will they have appointed well-qualified specialist teachers or will some, as I have heard rumoured, have to teach outside their specialism? How many students will they actually have in September? Oh, and, who’s paying for all this?

I really can’t see what is in this for Nottingham University. Surely their undoubted expertise should be used to assist all schools within their area rather than ‘sponsoring’ one that will, if successful in recruiting, draw students away from those schools and cause real problems for their curriculum planning.